Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Haplo_Patryn

Agreed. TEAW has wonderful artwork and loads of detailed units, but it doesn't really capture the feeling of WWI, at least at present.

WWI Gold does a much better job of modeling WWI - better diplomacy, better recreation of trench warfare, better simulation of combat across a front rather than just stacks, better simulation of the development of new combat doctrines and execution in ground offenses (via the Grand Offensive mechanism).

-1. Sorry guys but I've played both games and I can tell you that TEAW is far better game and far better simulation. Playing two PBEM games now, TEAW is like WWI in all aspects.

Doing an AAR here, you can see that the trench warfare is working fine and the fronts are similar to the historical ones. You should play PBEM games, your opinion about it would change.

http://www.puntadelanza.net/Foro/phpBB3 ... 41&t=16428

This is a very important point and it's easy to overlook its significance if you're not entirely happy with TEAW. If a game plays well when played against a human opponent that means that the underlying game mechanics are doing a spiffing job of simulating the conflict of the period. It simply means that AGEOD haven't had enough time to teach the AI how to play the game properly.

We know that there are some substantial issues with the release version. The WE AI doesn't do a proper blockade, the CP AI can't invade Belgium and is too ready to throw away its NM by sending its fleet out. It also appears that there is an issue with ammo for medium/heavy artillery. But I've read posts on AGEOD's boards suggesting that we're going to like the first patch. I'm a fairly positive person with no axes to grind here and see no reason to doubt that v1.01 is going to be a significant improvement over the release version. I trust the designers to put in the work to teach the AI to do a reasonable job of playing the game.

FWIW, WW1 Gold was my first ever AGEOD game. Wodin recommended it to me a while back and I picked it up. AGEOD games are quite difficult for a total newb to get into and WW1 Gold is about as difficult as it gets so I went and picked up Rise of Prussia (not yet Gold) to learn the game engine. I couldn't believe just how much better RoP was when compared to WW1 Gold. It was a beautiful game compared to WW1 Gold. It was so simple to shift units around within stacks and then move said stacks around the map without having to be over-cautious about dropping them in the wrong place.

After a bit of time with RoP, I returned to WW1 Gold to give it another go and the game experience wasn't much better. I'm sorry but for this wargamer, WW1 Gold was a great game in theory with some wonderful mechanics but it played like a dog and didn't live up to my expectations. Clearly, it lived up to some of yours and that's fine by me.

The only other AGEOD title that I own that I've played less that WW1 Gold is RUS and that's not because I was unhappy. It was just because in my first campaign as the Whites, I was overwhelmed by the size of the beast. It started nice and small in the Caucasus and expanded into the Crimea not too long after I had secured my base of operations there and I completely missed that other theatres had opened up and I'd left large armies sitting around doing nothing for several turns. I fully expect to play this one again as the Reds next time, maybe after it goes Gold?

I own every AGEOD game but one (RUS), so I know them well. I certainly hope they can patch TEAW to the point that it offers the same sort of SP experience as AGEOD's other games.

The first AGEOD game I bought on release was Spanish Civil War which is a great game. Now I own all of them except for the first ACW title, (I have ACW 2)and the Hannibal expansion for AJE. Yes, that includes 'Great Invasions' too [8D] Since SCW, I've observed that AGEOD games come out of the starting gate a tad early and don't really begin to show their true merit until the first patch, or expansion, is released.

I'm not sure that TEAW is ever going to be as sharp an opponent as it is in ROP for example but I'm sure it will suffice for the SP too once they release a few campaigns that start with fixed front lines. Personally, I don't think the engine will ever be able to manage a 1914 start successfully but I can see it playing a 1915, 16, 17 or 18 start very well indeed. Especially if we get a one-front campaign.

This is my first Ageod game and I have to say while it's pretty and detailed I'm very disappointed with it. I don't understand how you can release a WW1 game knowing the AI can't even invade Belgium?!? Come on guys! I can deal with an AI that's not very bright but this is ridiculous. I'm doubt very much whether or not I'll ever purchase another Ageod game until I know the AI can at least somewhat simulate the general outlines of the campaign in question.

ORIGINAL: AZ Gung Ho

This is my first Ageod game and I have to say while it's pretty and detailed I'm very disappointed with it. I don't understand how you can release a WW1 game knowing the AI can't even invade Belgium?!? Come on guys! I can deal with an AI that's not very bright but this is ridiculous. I'm doubt very much whether or not I'll ever purchase another Ageod game until I know the AI can at least somewhat simulate the general outlines of the campaign in question.

The upcoming patches will improve the AI the developers said. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Haplo_Patryn

Agreed. TEAW has wonderful artwork and loads of detailed units, but it doesn't really capture the feeling of WWI, at least at present.

WWI Gold does a much better job of modeling WWI - better diplomacy, better recreation of trench warfare, better simulation of combat across a front rather than just stacks, better simulation of the development of new combat doctrines and execution in ground offenses (via the Grand Offensive mechanism).

-1. Sorry guys but I've played both games and I can tell you that TEAW is far better game and far better simulation. Playing two PBEM games now, TEAW is like WWI in all aspects.

Doing an AAR here, you can see that the trench warfare is working fine and the fronts are similar to the historical ones. You should play PBEM games, your opinion about it would change.

http://www.puntadelanza.net/Foro/phpBB3 ... 41&t=16428

I wish I could read your language. Your AAR looks excellent.

ORIGINAL: AZ Gung Ho

This is my first Ageod game and I have to say while it's pretty and detailed I'm very disappointed with it. I don't understand how you can release a WW1 game knowing the AI can't even invade Belgium?!? Come on guys! I can deal with an AI that's not very bright but this is ridiculous. I'm doubt very much whether or not I'll ever purchase another Ageod game until I know the AI can at least somewhat simulate the general outlines of the campaign in question.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the German AI 'can't invade Belgium'. It tries to but it struggles to break out of Belgium but, to be fair, an average human player will struggle to do this in good time too. Maybe the Belgians need to be tweaked or an event card added to help the AI and the CP player a real chance to recreate the historical German accomplishments in 1914. In most war games, I've often found it very difficult, if not impossible to do what the real life campaigners were able to do when playing against a human opponent, whether that be Napoleon, Julius Ceasar, Moltke or Hitler.

Even before the first patch, the AI is already as good as you'll find in any other game, if not better, that attempts to simulate the conflict at this level.

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

Even before the first patch, the AI is already as good as you'll find in any other game, if not better, that attempts to simulate the conflict at this level.

That's generally true of other AGEOD games, but not this one. The AI, at present, is markedly worse - at least for the conflict being modeled - than any other AGEOD game. Hope the patch changes that.

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

ORIGINAL: Haplo_Patryn

Agreed. TEAW has wonderful artwork and loads of detailed units, but it doesn't really capture the feeling of WWI, at least at present.

WWI Gold does a much better job of modeling WWI - better diplomacy, better recreation of trench warfare, better simulation of combat across a front rather than just stacks, better simulation of the development of new combat doctrines and execution in ground offenses (via the Grand Offensive mechanism).

-1. Sorry guys but I've played both games and I can tell you that TEAW is far better game and far better simulation. Playing two PBEM games now, TEAW is like WWI in all aspects.

Doing an AAR here, you can see that the trench warfare is working fine and the fronts are similar to the historical ones. You should play PBEM games, your opinion about it would change.

http://www.puntadelanza.net/Foro/phpBB3 ... 41&t=16428

I wish I could read your language. Your AAR looks excellent.

Agree, this looks like a piece of (AAR) art [&o]

If you ever do an English version of this, PLEASE let us know! [:D]

Can I mod the hideous graphics? I want to play a wargame not Candyland. If so, I think I'll buy it. If not moddable, I will pass.

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

Even before the first patch, the AI is already as good as you'll find in any other game, if not better, that attempts to simulate the conflict at this level.

That's generally true of other AGEOD games, but not this one. The AI, at present, is markedly worse - at least for the conflict being modeled - than any other AGEOD game. Hope the patch changes that.

Well, that would be true were I talking about comparing EAW's AI to other AGEOD games, but I wasn't. I was talking about "any other game that attempts to simulate the conflict at this level". My post was about EAW's AI and we're discussing WW1, right? So why would you think I'm talking about RoP's or RUS' AI? I know for a fact that the EAW's AI doesn't perform as effectively as it does in these other titles but, as you are aware, we are playing EAW 1.00

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was posting something positive and encouraging in response to AZ Gung Ho who posted that he was disappointed with the game? You don't seem to like that, do you? [:D]

I have never played 'Commander - The Great War' but from what I've read, the AI is not really up to scratch and I'm guessing, probably unfairly, that EAW's AI is already on a par with that game's AI. No doubt, someone will correct me if I'm wrong and I'll be happy to be corrected.

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

Well, that would be true were I talking about comparing EAW's AI to other AGEOD games, but I wasn't. I was talking about "any other game that attempts to simulate the conflict at this level". My post was about EAW's AI and we're discussing WW1, right? So why would you think I'm talking about RoP's or RUS' AI? I know for a fact that the EAW's AI doesn't perform as effectively as it does in these other titles but, as you are aware, we are playing EAW 1.00

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was posting something positive and encouraging in response to AZ Gung Ho who posted that he was disappointed with the game? You don't seem to like that, do you? [:D]

I have never played 'Commander - The Great War' but from what I've read, the AI is not really up to scratch and I'm guessing, probably unfairly, that EAW's AI is already on a par with that game's AI. No doubt, someone will correct me if I'm wrong and I'll be happy to be corrected.

Just calm down. I wasn't attacking you or your opinion.

I was just observing that the AI in this game, at present, is not representative of the AI in other AGEOD games. And that I hope the patch changes that.

Though I still think WW1Gold had far better mechanics for WW1 due to it being specifically designed to do it I do love EAW combat mechanics.

I have only played as the Central Powers so far and thats where the static warfare issue rears it's head. Though it does the beginning of the War OK. didn't know it didn't do the beginning OK if you played as The Entente.

I do wish WW1Gold had EAW's detailed combat as it's alot more fun.

Always frustrating when you get two or more games each with an aspect that is fantastic and other parts not so bu if you could take out the best bits from each game you'd have the perfect game.

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

Well, that would be true were I talking about comparing EAW's AI to other AGEOD games, but I wasn't. I was talking about "any other game that attempts to simulate the conflict at this level". My post was about EAW's AI and we're discussing WW1, right? So why would you think I'm talking about RoP's or RUS' AI? I know for a fact that the EAW's AI doesn't perform as effectively as it does in these other titles but, as you are aware, we are playing EAW 1.00

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was posting something positive and encouraging in response to AZ Gung Ho who posted that he was disappointed with the game? You don't seem to like that, do you? [:D]

I have never played 'Commander - The Great War' but from what I've read, the AI is not really up to scratch and I'm guessing, probably unfairly, that EAW's AI is already on a par with that game's AI. No doubt, someone will correct me if I'm wrong and I'll be happy to be corrected.

Just calm down. I wasn't attacking you or your opinion.

I was just observing that the AI in this game, at present, is not representative of the AI in other AGEOD games. And that I hope the patch changes that.

You made your 'observation' quoting a section of my post to another poster which misrepresented what I said to him so I am entitled to respond to you in kind. I never said that EAW's AI was equal to the AI in other AGEOD games and you appear to know that. Perhaps it would have been less 'confusing' if you hadn't quoted my post[;)]

It might also be worth reminding you that this thread is titled 'My Last AGEOD Game. Period.' and is likely to draw the attention of people who are feeling a bit negative or are considering purchasing this gamer and looking for a bit of community feedback before buying. Goodness knows that's what I do when considering a purchase. It's not responsible to be too negative about something and potentially putting people off when we all know that the AI is being worked on in the first patch. Does it really hurt you that much to let a bit of positivity and optimism stand without challenging it? This is AGEOD after all, and not EA.[:D]

Fight Fight Fight ^^^^ [X(]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Fight Fight Fight ^^^^ [X(]

Sorry if my post offended you. If you feel that my tone is inappropriate or offensive in some way, please feel free to report my post to the moderators, done by clicking on the 'Report' hyperlink in the bottom right corner of each post.

FWIW, my position in this thread is that, even in its infancy, the AI in this game is already on a par with its WW1 competitors. Given that the devs and the testers have all stated that the first patch will bring significant changes to the AI's performance, I see no reason to be cynical and distrust them. If AGEOD have a history of not supporting their games, I'm not aware of it and so there's no good reason not to be optimistic that the first patch will bring some good changes. They're probably not going to go far enough to satisfy some folks but that can't be helped. Perhaps we'll have to wait for the second patch or first expansion to get it right.

Further, I have been looking at the game 'Endless Legend' recently and made the decision to hold off on buying it indefinitely because I have read that the AI is about as dumb as a sack of rocks. When I read people complaining that they can take the AI down with a single stack of units without losing a single unit and supporters tell them that they just shouldn't play like that, I think that it's not good enough for me. I want to read that the devs ARE doing something to fix it up and soon.

When researching a new game, I tend to read posts on the boards that have negative titles to see what folks think is deficient in the game. Sometimes, the pro-lobby put in a convincing argument and I'm swayed to buy the game in spite of the negative thread title. No doubt, some folks are doing that here as well. With a title like 'My Last AGEOD Game. Period' and being on the first page, it's bound to get a few hits.

To folks who are doing what I do, I say that this game is on the right track in spite of some of the negativity and aspersions cast on the suitability of the engine to do WW1 properly earlier in this thread. have no fear that the devs will support this game.

It seems now that many games when they first come out have problems for the first half year there a work in progress. Games are more complex now just look how many updates there are for all games. that's a good thing. I think TEAW is a good game and has lots of potential. I think AGEOD are a little hard to learn how to play but once you learn how every thing seems to make sense. Getting to that point takes a while but once there it's fine, like riding a bike.

I own all of the AGEOD games... they are complex... and are for people who like to master operational and strategic military situations. I believe some people are not interested in this kind of challenge and feel the games are not what they expected. If you commit to the challenge... you may discover one of the most fulfilling gaming experiences you have ever had. I believe that Wars in America is one of the best computer games I have seen... but it is not easy...
I believe that To End All Wars will end up being an excellent game... Most of the AGEOD games are exceptional.

For a complex game system which does a great job IMO to simulate the era in detail (and without the hideous cartoon graphics) I play HOI3 with a WW1 mod OR Victoria 2 which covers 1831-1935 and you can find a scenario just for the WW1 period if that is all you want. Great depth in those games. And no hideous graphics.

Graphics are beautiful.
That is one of the best aspects of the game, but I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...